On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, [email protected] wrote:

> Hello fellow WOrriors, 
> 
> Have you ever looked at the names given to WO input fields such as 
> WOTextFields? They could look like one of the following: 
> 
> name="0.15.37.1.1.1.0.0.3" 
> 
> name="0.15.37.1.5.7.1.21.1.29.270710975.3.1.1.3.8.1.0.5" 
> 
> They tend to get longer the more times they are nested inside of sub 
> components. 
> 
> They need to be unique and it appears they follow a WOContext type of naming 
> convention to guarantee their uniqueness. I would say this algoirthm is not 
> random but methodical and absolutely guarantees uniqueness. 
> 
> I've got one page that has lots of text fields and realized that just one 
> "row" of data is taking up 20KB of just text because of these super long 
> names. 
> 
> Why couldn't one use a randomly generated unique ID that is ten characters 
> long (or so)? There *could* be name collision but the chances would be small. 
> Alternatively, why not invent a "context sequence" that starts at 1 and 
> counts up throughout the Request-Response loop? That would absolutely be 
> unique. 

I believe that is what they are ... a "context sequence" of sorts (^_^)  
Specifically, they are derived from the context().elementID().  I think how 
this value is created is that the first number is the contextID, followed by a 
'.', then each element increments the element id, and each nesting adds a '.' 
separator character. However, my understanding of it is likely imperfect.

> 
> Has anyone heard of anybody trying to do something like this for the purpose 
> of saving bandwidth? Perhaps even WOnder might have a cool property that we 
> could flick on to do just this. Or... is there a very good reason why 
> autogenerated names are built the way they are? After all, you would think 
> someone would have optimized these to be smaller if they could. 
> 
> -- Aaron

Ahh, but Wonder does have a cool property to fix this:

## Enable reponse compression when user agent accepts gzip
# er.extensions.ERXApplication.responseCompressionEnabled = true

That should bring your page size down around 85%.  My typical D2W pages rarely 
exceed 12KB with gzip. Even with lots of inline SVG, the bandwidth savings are 
generally quite amazing.

Large/numerous images/fonts/media will obviously eat up the bandwidth.  
However, if you turn on that property, I think you'll find javascript is the 
real bandwidth pig. Not so much WO.

Ramsey


 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

This email sent to [email protected]

Reply via email to